Disposed
Binod Ku.Choudhury v. State
Orissa HCWP(C)/23823/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23823 of 2014 (Through hybrid mode)
Binod Ku. Choudhury …. Petitioner
Mr. A. K. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State and others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. S. K. Sahoo, Advocate for the Insurance Company
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA ORDER 11.10.2022 I.A. No.11629 of 2022
Order No.
11. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant, who was petitioner in the writ petition, since disposed of by order dated 21st July, 2022. He submits, prayer in the application is for enforcing compliance of directions made in said order. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the insurance company and prays for adjournment. On query from Court Mr. Dash submits, he does not have information of appeal preferred against said order dated 21st July, 2022.
2. Clear directions were made in said order dated 21st July, 2022 on reasons given therein. The allegation is that State has not complied.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
This Bench on having dealt with the writ petition, is functus officio in respect of adjudication thereof. Applicant must find equitable mode of execution, for enforcing the directions.
3. With above observation the application is disposed of. This will however not prevent applicant from seeking such remedy as may be available in law.
Prasant
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
Binod Ku. Choudhury
State
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court